Mark Webber's shoulder...

[xpensive]

Indeed, my former hero is either unprecedently stupid, an utter prat or a plain out liar. Sinple as that.

[Giblet]

I think the other option is that it's not a big deal but fans and media are making it bigger than it is.

[andrew]

And Webber made sure that everyone knew about both.

[Giblet]

The broken leg was very hard to miss, he was hit by a car during a publicized race, and he wouldn't have been able to keep that out of the media regardless. You don't break a leg secretly, everyone finds out. The second, he wrote in a book, and didn't think it was a big deal as he said it didn't affect his driving, and says the media is making a big deal out of during a slow week.

What you are saying makes no sense, one injury unable to keep a secret, the second didn't affect anyone, but here everyone is, yourselves included, blowing it out of proportion.

[andrew]

What you are saying makes no sense, one injury unable to keep a secret, the second didn't affect anyone, but here everyone is, yourselves included, blowing it out of proportion.

It makes perfect sense. Rather than keping quite and getting on with it, Webber was constanly banging on about his gammy leg and no doubt there will be more sound-bite (along with his book) going on about his sore shoulder. Sure the media and fan metioned it once or twice but Webber didn't exactly play down his leg injury.

Either way, no matter how anyone paints it, the shoulder sounds too much like a timely excuse.

[Giblet]

I'd like to see some examples of him going on about his leg when not asked. The leg injury was huge, and he got on with it, and nearly won a WDC with it. He wasn't whining about it, he got on with healing and driving, like a professional.

This is pure speculation on your part, as the shoulder injury was not an excuse, because you are missing the most basic of things that has been said over and over. He said the shoulder injury had no bearing on his driving, therefore you are choosing to see it as an excuse in your own mind.

[andrew]

I'd like to see some examples of him going on about his leg when not asked. The leg injury was huge, and he got on with it, and nearly won a WDC with it. He wasn't whining about it, he got on with healing and driving, like a professional.

He nearly won it did he? Don't think he did at all. 4th place isn't nearly winning.

This is pure speculation on your part, as the shoulder injury was not an excuse, because you are missing the most basic of things that has been said over and over. He said the shoulder injury had no bearing on his driving, therefore you are choosing to see it as an excuse in your own mind.

Is it not also pure speculation that his shoulder is not an excuse? Of course he is going to deny that it didn't affect his driving but given the G-forces experienced by driver I find that extremely hard to believe. The timing and not disclosing it to his team is very strange and sets alarm bells ringing. As far as I am concerned, it is nothing more than an excuse.

[Giblet]

A - He had a chance to win until the last lap of the last race.
He never denied anything, he stated from the outset that it had no bearing on his driving, and only took pain killers as a precaution of qualy and race on the same day.

B - You are reading into this what you want obviously, and not taking fact as fact. For it to be an 'excuse' he would have to 'excuse' his lack of a title win with his shoulder, which he has not done. He has specifically told us that it had no bearing, but for you, it did? Hater hating. or you simply don't understand the definition of 'excuse'.

As usual, you choose to see what you want with your colored glasses.

[Formula None]

Full disclosurre:

I'e broke threee of m,y fongers last moth. This has not efected the quality of my posts whatsver.

[andrew]

B - You are reading into this what you want obviously, and not taking fact as fact. For it to be an 'excuse' he would have to 'excuse' his lack of a title win with his shoulder, which he has not done. He has specifically told us that it had no bearing, but for you, it did? Hater hating. or you simply don't understand the definition of 'excuse'.

Firstly I am fully versed in basic English and the definituions of several words so no need to patronise me.

Whilst he has not expressly stated that his shoulder cost him the title, enough has been said to allow 2 and 2 to be put together. If this was disclosed at a different time or if he had won the championship I would maybe be inclined to give Webber the benefit of the doubt, but given the timing I cannot.

As usual, you choose to see what you want with your colored glasses.

You are also reading into this what you want are you not? You have chosen to believe Webber's claim I have not. Simple as that.

We all like to believe that our heros are superhuman but the simple fact is that your hero in question is just as human as anyone else. I simply do not believe for one minute that if his shoulder was injured to the reputed extent that Webber would have been as competitive as he was in the final race (unitl the unusual pit stop strategy didn't work out).

[segedunum]

To be fair seg, he said that the injury had no bearing at all on his driving, so he is not using it as a scape goat.

It's a case of reverse psychology though, that's the problem. He mentions the injury, then quickly tells us it had no bearing on him losing the championship, but the effect of saying something like that is to get people to think that he's being a decent, magnanimous guy about it so we'll then think that it must have had an effect and then go "Ahhhh, poor Mark". It comes off as awkward and as forced as anything else he's said to the media. At times, I wonder who between Vettel and Webber is the 23 year old.

We're not reading anything at all into this. Mark is the one who's decided to mention this injury straight after the fact. No one ever says anything to the media for nothing, certainly not Mark Webber.

As I've said before though, you could predict how Webber was going to lose that championship and how he would react from previous experience. There's been times when he's been very fast and won races convincingly, but when he's struggled and been running on empty he's thrashed around and thrown out little comments and excuses usually in an attempt to try and convince himself more than anything else. As sure as eggs is eggs, that's what he's always done.

If I was him I'd be concentrating damn hard for next year because other drivers are talking long and hard with their engineers about how much weight they should lose with the addition of KERS next year. There's going to be no room at all, literally, for an inconsistent 6' 2" guy who's heavier than anyone else with an attitude problem when he's struggling. I predict that results will dictate that Red Bull will have to get rid of him before the end of next season.

[Giblet]

So he says it had no bearing on his driving, and you say it does. Check. You fully understand the meaning of the word excuse, but still say he used it as one. Check.

All I am getting at is he says one thing, but you automatically disregard what he says and insert your own beliefs instead.

[segedunum]

So he says it had no bearing on his driving, and you say it does. Check. You fully understand the meaning of the word excuse, but still say he used it as one. Check.

That's reverse phsychology for you Giblet. Look it up.

All I am getting at is he says one thing, but you automatically disregard what he says and insert your own beliefs instead.

No. When somebody says something they say it for a reason, especially in Formula 1, and Mark Webber and PR people know exactly how something that is said will be perceived. You don't even need to be a PR person. It's as obvious a piece of reverse psychology as you'll get.

I seem to remember you having trouble with this whole concept in the past. What people say isn't quite what they mean in the world of PR and media. I can see that's coming as quite a shock to your logic circuits.

[marcush.]

but wasn´t it Marks aim to air unreflected raw insight into his 2010 campaign and omit a hindsight sort of review?
Or was this another PR motivated claim...
I come to the conclusion that Webber has not won the title and it does not matter to the world if he lost with a broken shoulder that did not affect his driving.there is some contradiction in his actions and it does not help his reputation at all that he did air this now after all his done and dusted. It will not help his cause 2011 either presumably.

[raymondu999]

All I am getting at is he says one thing, but you automatically disregard what he says and insert your own beliefs instead.

Wasn't that what most people were doing when Red Bull said they would have no team orders? They just said, "If Vettel was ahead of Webber, they'd do team orders"